Skip to main content

About this Show

The Rachel Maddow Show

News/Business. (2013)

NETWORK

DURATION
01:00:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Virtual Ch. 787 (MSNBC HD)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
1920

PIXEL HEIGHT
1080

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Us 12, Florida 11, Marco Rubio 11, Rubio 9, America 5, Desiline Victor 4, Rick Scott 4, Wisconsin 4, Intermezzo 4, Washington 4, Mr. Rubio 3, Chuck Hagel 3, Ben Ginsberg 3, Romney 3, Indiana 3, Valentine 2, Mr. Ginsberg 2, Obama 2, Texas 2, Steve Kornacki 2,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  MSNBC    The Rachel Maddow Show    News/Business.  (2013)  

    February 14, 2013
    1:00 - 2:00am PST  

1:00am
and anybody out there on the internet who is praising this guy, they better go back to smoking cigarettes without labels again, because this was a bad determined killer. and that's the only way to understand this guy. >> with that, mr. van zandt, why didn't he hurt the cleaning crew or the pickup driver? what about that? >> i don't think they were combatants, ed. i think he considered law enforcement officers as men and women in uniform, the uniform that he used to wear. he considered them combatants, but the two cleaning ladies, the guy he hijacked the car from -- >> already, clint van zandt, we've lost that live shot from the west coast tonight. we certainly appreciate you joining us on this story. and there you see one of the most bizarre police stories i think we've ever seen unfold right before our eyes. he was hiding out right across
1:01am
from the police command post, and came across a couple of women who were going to clean the cabin. didn't take their lives, nor did he take the life of the person who was driving a truck and got carjacked. but there is a string of dead people, and now dorner is not 100% confirmed dead, according to the sheriff's office, but of course since he is former naval reserve and former lapd, i'm sure they'll have the dental records. and it will be probably within the next 48 hours that they would make a positive identification. that's "the ed show." i'm ed schultz. "the rachel maddow show" is starting right now. good evening, rachel. great job last night, again. >> thank you, ed. i have to tell you, i'm having a little trouble with my audio right now. so we'll see how my show goes tonight. >> if you can hear me, you can just give me gestures. >> okay. i've been talking for 35 years. i can probably fill some audio for you if you need me to.
1:02am
>> i think i'm all right, as listening as i hold perfectly still. all right. >> you sound fantastic as always. >> thank you. >> all systems go. no problem, houston. >> all right, thank you, man. i appreciate it. and thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. ought to be more exciting than usual. let's see. president obama's state of the union address last night lasted almost exactly 60 minutes, with not quite 7,000 words. it was a little longer than average in terms of word count. the speech was interrupted 83 times for applause, according to a tally by the national journal. there was no notable disruption in the audience this year, no moment like a republican congressman yelling "you lie" the way congressman joe wilson did during the joint address to congress back in 2009 there was no moment like a supreme court justice muttering a rebuttal to the president from the rows up front the way justice samuel alito did in 2010. there was one moment of the speech, though, last night where you heard something from the room. you heard a gasp from the room
1:03am
in response to something that the president said. >> we should follow the example of the north miami woman named desiline victor. when desiline arrived at her polling place, she was told the wait to vote might be six hours. as time ticked by, her concern was not with her tired body or aching feet, but whether folks like her would get to have their say. hour after hour, a throng of people stayed in line to support her. because desiline is 102 years old. and they erupted in cheers when she finally put on a sticker that read "i voted." >> the room gasped at that reveal in the anecdote, right, where the president reveals how old desiline victor is. and then the crowd stood, democrats and republicans, everybody in the room, and they gave desiline victor, 102 years old, a standing ovation. they stood and they cheered her patriotism, the heroism that she showed by waiting all that time
1:04am
in line, by willing to be able to go back. today back home in miami, look at this, desiline victor got another hero's welcome. her friends and her family turned out to meet her at miami international airport with hand-made signs and balloons and flowers, a little bit of dancing even when she flew home from washington, d.c. from having gone to go see the speech. welcome home, desiline, thank you what you have done, miss victor. very nice. the day that she waited so long in line to vote, desiline victor was trying to cast her ballot at the second most busy in all of miami-dade. throughout florida, she was not alone in wanting to vote, in trying to vote, but finding that that simple act of citizenship had in florida become an endurance test. >> now in campaign 2012, and one day left to cast your early vote. and so far the process has been plagued by very long lines.
1:05am
>> it was long, long wait. very slow-moving day. >> let us vote! let us vote! let us vote! >> i've been waiting here since 12:30 to pick up an absentee ballot, and now they're telling us we've got to go home. that's just ridiculous. >> i'm not leaving. this is democracy. whoever you vote for, you should vote. >> this is not cuba. this is not china. we cannot allow this to happen. >> i have not seen a line this long in a very long time. >> these voters arrived around 7:30 this morning. they're nearly to the front of the line. they've waited two and a half hours. and down the line a bit, these folks arrived around 8:00. their estimated wait time more than three hours. and around the corner down this very long line, these folks arriving between 9:00 and 10:00 a.m. their estimated wait up to four hours. >> estimated wait four hours. some voters waiting twice that long. this is not how we expect elections to work in a country that is supposedly the beacon of light for the world, right?
1:06am
not historically, not for regular folks. certainly not for 102 retired ladies. and after he hosted desiline victor at the state of the union last night and told her story about trying to vote and this problem in our country, president obama then moved on later on in the speech to propose a solution to this problem. >> we must all do our part to make sure our god-given rights are protected here at home. that includes one of the most fundamental rights of a democracy, the right to vote. when any american no matter where they live or what their party are denied that right, because they can't afford to wait for five or six or seven hours just to cast their ballot, we are betraying our ideals. so tonight i'm announcing a
1:07am
nonpartisan commission to improve the voting experience in america. and it definitely needs improvement. i'm asking two long-time experts in the field, who recently served as top attorneys for my campaign and for governor romney's campaign to lead it. we can fix this. and we will. the american people demand it, and so does our democracy. >> the president calling on the state of the union for a commission to improve the voting experience in america, to be led by what he called two long-time experts in the field. they are the top attorney for the president's campaign, this man, bob bauer, general counsel for the obama reelection effort. the other top attorney is this man, ben ginsberg, who served as national counsel for the mitt romney campaign in 2012. so one chairman from the democratic side, one chairman from the republican side.
1:08am
now in setting the commission up this way and announcing it this way, the president is clearly trying to turn fixing our national problem with voting into a bipartisan effort. he is trying to proceed here as if a story like desiline victor's pulls on everybody's heartstrings equally, democrat and republican. but what happened to desiline victor when she tried to vote this year was not an accident, it was on purpose. it was policy. florida republicans took overt steps to make voting lines longer in florida and to make voting harder. to make registering to vote harder even. governor rick scott signed into law new requirements that made voter registration drives so legally perilous, that even the hearty league of women voters gave up trying. rick scott cut early voting in florida almost in half. and when it became clear that florida voters were facing eight-hour lines for early voting, governor rick scott refused to put any of those lost days back. get in line, florida.
1:09am
let's see how long you can wait. republican governor rick scott refused to do anything to shorten the lines, even though not everybody could stand in the marathon lines that he and florida republicans created by policy. in the after-election studies of what happened this year, it is reported that at least 200,000 florida voters ultimately gave up and walked away from the polls. they had to because of the lines. at least 200,000 voters who wanted to vote who did not make it through the epic journey from the end of the line to the voting booth. at least 200,000, maybe more. that did not happen by accident. making voting harder was policy in florida and in several other states as well. republican-controlled states, because it was republican policy. and since the election, republicans in the states have seen that kind of effect that we saw in florida this year. they have seen that. 200,000 people didn't vote who might have voted if voting was easier. they see that effect, and they see that as a feature, not a bug. since the election, they have
1:10am
continued pushing laws to make voting harder. it's underappreciated in the beltway, but this kind of thing did not stop after the election. republicans are proceeding apace in missouri. republicans there trying anew to require voters to show new documentation they have never had to show before, and they know some quarter of a million voters in that state do not have. republicans in montana in the legislature there, they're now trying to take away the long-standing montana right to register and vote on election day. last week, republicans in the virginia legislature voted to eliminate several common forms of id that you can show in order to be allowed to vote there now, things like a paycheck or a utility bill. today virginia republicans advanced a bill with even tighter restrictions. under the new bill they advanced today, get this, the id card that you got to allow you to vote, the id card that you got already from the state board of elections, that would not be good enough to allow you to vote anymore. in the great state of indiana, two republican lawmakers there introduced a bill to ban any college student from voting if
1:11am
you paid out-of-state tuition in the state. indiana republicans proposed that, even though it is blatantly, patently almost laughably unconstitutional. there is a supreme court ruling specifically on this exact issue that says you cannot pass that kind of law. but indiana republicans want it anyway. they proposed it. they held a hearing on it. the lead sponsor of the bill only gave up on the specific provision involving college students today after fending off lots of questions on its obvious unconstitutionality. but the lead sponsor now says she wants a committee to study this question over the summer, and then maybe she'll try again with it? i don't know. republicans in the state spent the years ahead of this last presidential election trying to make voting harder in order to try to help mitt romney win. in moments of candor, they said so. like when that top republican in the pennsylvania legislature said voter id laws would deliver the state of pennsylvania for mitt romney. it did not work well enough to accomplish that this time. but after mitt romney lost, republicans in the states started in again with renewed
1:12am
vigor. they are not giving this thing up. the republican lawyer who will now co-chair the president's bipartisan commission to, quote, improve the voting experience, ben ginsberg, he spent last year advising the romney campaign, including the romney campaign in its role in the state-by-state fights over how hard republicans in those states could make to it vote in this country. when the obama campaign sued over ohio republicans cutting early voting, it was mr. ginsberg and the romney campaign who condemned that challenge as despicable. in wisconsin, when the romney campaign recruited poll-watchers to challenge individual citizens' right to vote, the manual they gave those poll watchers contained wrong information, the kind of instructions that might lead people to challenge voters without real legal cause from blocking them. from the "washington post," quote, the story prompted a letter from the obama campaign attorney bob bauer to wisconsin's attorney general. these acts of willful misrepresentation to individuals sent to polling locations to enforce the law raise serious concerns under wisconsin law,
1:13am
mr. bauer wrote. he added that this was not an isolated matter, citing the wisconsin activities of true the vote, an organization close to the republican party and the romney campaign. that would be mr. bob bauer making that complaint, the attorney on the left there, who is now co-chairing the president's improved voting commission with the romney lawyer on the right, whose campaign was trying to stop early voting in ohio, and that gave its poll watchers wrong information about how to keep people from voting who should have been allowed to vote. awkward match, right? putting the guy whose party has tried and is still trying to make it hard to vote on the commission to fix voting, insisting that republicans must be as bothered by this as democrats. that's what the president left on the table last night after that incredibly moving story about this 102-year-old woman pulling out all the stops to vote, even though all the odds were against her. that's what the president put on the table. and the president is a smart political strategist. what kind of strategy is this? is it hope?
1:14am
is it the same kind -- and i don't say that dismissively. it is the same kind of hope and optimism and persistent never give uppism that is embodied by desiline victor, is it that kind of hope and persistence and optimism? awesome. but also, is there a plan b if it turns out republicans aren't really going to come around on this and they still feel about this the way they have for years now. joining us is rick hasen at the university of california irvine law school. he writes the election law blog. he is the author of "the voting wars." professor, it's great to see you. great to see you. >> great to be here. >> i'm a political observer on these things. what do you make of the strategy of president obama choosing the top two lawyers from his campaign and mr. ginsberg from
1:15am
the romney campaign to try to head up a commission like this? >> first of all, if you're going to have a commission like this, you have to have credible democrats and republicans. there was a question whether there would be a credible republican who would be interested in doing something like this. the fact that ben ginsberg, who is a well respected republican ♪
1:16am
1:17am
1:18am
1:19am
1:20am
♪ ♪ for those nights when it's more than a bad dream, be ready. for the times you need to double-check the temperature on the thermometer, be ready. for high fever, nothing works faster or lasts longer. be ready with children's motrin.
1:21am
1:22am
. . . . . . . .
1:23am
1:24am
i don't believe in drinking water on television. i don't believe that a person should -- if you're on tv, i don't think you should be drinking out of a water bottle. i think -- honestly, i just think it's not appropriate. if a camera is on you, unless you are dying from a coughing fit or something, if you want to take a swig out of a bottle of water on tv, i just don't -- i don't know if it's just the way i'm raised or the way i was taught to be on tv or something, but i'm not -- i just don't -- i don't think you should do it. i would never do it. what? i am not drinking water on tv. like i just said, i would never do that. what i am doing is hydrating. it's totally different. i would never drink water on tv. but i'm happy to hydrate. and that is the kind of distinction that republicans in the senate are using right now to try to stop chuck hagel from being confirmed as our nation's next defense secretary. no cabinet nominee has ever been filibustered in the history of our country.
1:25am
it takes a majority vote to confirm someone the president wants in his cabinet. no one has ever tried to filibuster that before. it has never happened. even though a bunch of republican senators do not want chuck hagel to be defense secretary, they have insisted they would never filibuster him, because of course that would be unprecedented. you don't filibuster cabinet nominees. john mccain said that. lindsey graham said that. they doan like him, but they would not filibuster him. now they are filibustering him any way. those two senators and james inhofe from oklahoma say they will force a 60-vote super majority threshold for confirming chuck hagel for the first time in america for any cabinet nominee. and that is a filibuster. but they are insisting that nobody call it a filibuster, because, of course, they said they wouldn't do that. they are filibustering a cabinet nominee for the first time in american history after saying they wouldn't, but they do not want anybody to report it that
1:26am
way. because, see, they are not drinking water, they are hydrating. write it down the way i said you should write it down, reporter. we're going to call this hydrating. it's a totally different thing than drinking water on television. [ female announcer ] going to sleep may be easy, but when you wake up in the middle of the night it can be frustrating. it's hard to turn off and go back to sleep. intermezzo is the first and only prescription sleep aid approved for use as needed in the middle of the night when you can't get back to sleep. it's an effective sleep medicine you don't take before bedtime. take it in bed only when you need it and have at least four hours left for sleep. do not take intermezzo if you have had an allergic reaction to drugs containing zolpidem, such as ambien. allergic reactions such as shortness of breath or swelling of your tongue or throat may occur and may be fatal. intermezzo should not be taken if you have taken another sleep medicine at bedtime or in the middle of the night or drank alcohol that day. do not drive or operate machinery
1:27am
until at least 4 hours after taking intermezzo and you're fully awake. driving, eating, or engaging in other activities while not fully awake without remembering the event the next day have been reported. abnormal behaviors may include aggressiveness, agitation, hallucinations, or confusion. alcohol or taking other medicines that make you sleepy may increase these risks. in depressed patients, worsening of depression, including risk of suicide, may occur. intermezzo, like most sleep medicines, has some risk of dependency. common side effects are headache, nausea, and fatigue. so if you suffer from middle-of-the-night insomnia, ask your doctor about intermezzo and return to sleep again. ♪ and return to sleep again. you know, from our 4,000 television commercials. yep, there i am with flo. hoo-hoo! watch it! [chuckles] anyhoo, 3 million people switched to me last year, saving an average of $475.
1:28am
[sigh] it feels good to help people save... with great discounts like safe driver, multicar, and multipolicy. so call me today. you'll be glad you did. cannonbox! [splash!]
1:29am
so there is a best new thing coming up on tonight's show. it lies at the intersection of the presidency and valentine's day.
1:30am
it is awesome and involves tape that lots of people on my staff today thought i made up, but is actually real historical tape that is coming up right at the end of the show. the whole staff is somewhere between shock and excited about that. that's the best new thing. that's ahead. also, still to come tonight, we have a programing note that i dare say you might want to tell somebody about on the facebook machine or the twitter machine or something, if i can be so bold as to suggest that. this is going to be the first announcement about this anywhere. it is about something that msnbc is going to the as a network next week. i'm going to be hosting it. but it's an msnbc project. it premiers next week. and i think it is going to cause a bit of a political stir. i will tell you what it is in just a minute.
1:31am
1:32am
1:33am
we have the tape, we have the tape! here is where it all went wrong, apparently. >> hey. okay. are you looking at me? can you -- jillian, can you see me? >> yes, uh-huh. >> okay. i'm looking at the teleprompter. >> uh-huh. >> good evening. i speak to you tonight from washington, d.c. does it look like i'm even remotely looking in the camera?
1:34am
>> kind of. >> that was the setup for the republican response to the republican response to the state of the union last night. i think that is a rand paul staffer trying to make sure that rand paul giving the tea party republican response to the republican response to the state of the union this year did not end up looking like michele bachmann when she gave the same address a couple of years ago while look at something that really wasn't the camera. it turns out the staffer did have reason to be worried. rand paul, as you can see, was not looking as far away from the camera as michele bachmann was, but he was not looking into the camera either. they did the same thing wrong again. not only where we once again treated to not just a republican response to the state of the union, but also a tea party republican response to the response that once again the response to the response ended up being unintentionally funny because of bad staging, which is especially amazing considering that senator paul's staff was acutely aware of this as a potential problem, and we can see them on camera trying to fix it ahead of time.
1:35am
and then there was the official republican response to the state of the union. the republican party's first major chance to try to rectify with voters whatever it was that the country disliked about them enough to give president obama a resounding reelection victory over them in november. this is the first chance post election to change the country's mind about the republican party after mitt romney, right? this is the first chance at de-romneyification. it is the highest profile chance they will have for that for the entire year, if you think about it there is no republican convention there is no national elections. this is it for more than a year. this is their chance to re-impress the american people about what it means to be a republican that isn't about mitt romney. how do they rectify their image with a country where the women voted for democrats in the last election by an 11-point margin? well, the one thing that their state of the union response giver did to make news yesterday other than his state of the union response was that he voted no on the violence against women act.
1:36am
he and 21 other republican men in the united states senate voted no. then marco rubio got caught out once he started giving his speech in the easiest trap to get caught in when you have to give a response address. just minutes after the thing that you are responding to has ended, he anticipated things that he thought president obama would say in the state of the union. he wrote complaints in his own speech about things he thought president obama would say. but then when president obama did not actually say those things, mr. rubio did not adjust his speech the take out the complaints. so senator rubio in his response last night ended up complaining about things said by president obama that president obama actually did not say in the speech that everybody had just finished watching right before marco rubio got to take his turn. mr. rubio's whole windup was about how president obama had just spent his state of the union address defending big government and demanding even bigger government. this president thinks the only solution to everything is bigger government. and that might be an effective response to a yay big government
1:37am
speech, but instead it seemed like a non sequitur, because this is the speech that senator rubio's comments actually came after. >> it is not a bigger government we need. >> senator rubio also complained with a sarcastic twist that the president needs to put out a medicare plan already. tonight would have been a good night to do that, huh, mr. president. the problem is the president had just put out a medicare plan, a plan he described in the actual state of the union address that he delivered, even if it wasn't the one that played out in marco rubio's head when he wrote his own speech, and then didn't adjust it to reflect reality. mr. rubio also made a big point about placing himself in the american middle class. >> mr. president, i still live in the same working class neighborhood i grew up in. my neighbors aren't millionaires. they're retirees who depend on social security and medicare. they're workers who have to get up early tomorrow morning and go to work to pay the bills. they're immigrants who came here because they were stuck in
1:38am
poverty in the countries where the government dominated the economy. i want to protect my neighbors. hard-working middle class americans who don't need us to come up with a plan to grow the government. >> i'm just a middle class knie guy looking out for my middle class neighborhood and my working class neighborhood where i grew up in the middle class where i live now. that bit is transformed from political scene-setting into political punch line once everybody links to the pictures in the real estate listings showing marco rubio is in fact selling that middle class home in that middle class miami neighborhood. it's on the market for $657,000. so, you know you may love your neighbors, but why would you brag about that love for your neighbors in your middle class neighborhood in the highest profile speech you will ever give in your life when you're also on record trying to move away from those neighbors in that neighborhood so you can go live in washington, d.c.? the other screw-up with the rubio speech, the republican party's big effort to reset and de-romneyify themselves in the eyes of the nation is that somebody forgot to de-romneyify
1:39am
the speech itself. >> our free enterprise economy is the source of our middle class prosperity. but president obama, he believes it's the cause of our problems. >> i know free enterprise is on trial, and we have a president who really doesn't believe in the rights of people to do that. >> of course solar and wind energy should be a part of our energy portfolio. but god also blessed america with abundant coal, oil, and natural gas. >> i mean, he likes the wind and the solar, but he doesn't like the stuff that is under the ground, like coal and oil and natural gas. >> instead of wasting more taxpayer money on so-called clean energy companies like solyndra, let's open up more federal lands for safe and responsible exploration. >> they should have done more studying on solyndra and less studying on that drilling. i'm going to open lands for exploration. >> de-romneyification failed. the republicans' official response to barack obama's state of the union was essentially a new version of the stump speech of the guy who just lost the
1:40am
presidential election to barack obama. and the house that is the emotional centerpiece of the speech turns out is a house for sale. and the criticism of the criticism of the speech is not based on the president's speech at all. and they had him vote no on the violence against women act with 21 other republican guys right before he gave this speech. and they ran a second republican response again as well after they ran this one. it had the same eyeball problem as the other republican speech had the previous time when they did it. and then of course there was this. >> false choices like the one the president laid out tonight. >> if anybody everybody asks you to give the republican party's response to the state of the union just say no. seriously. i care about you. just say no. it's not a good gig. joining us now steve kornacki, host of msnbc's "the cycle" and a senior writer for salon.com. thanks for being here tonight. >> thanks for having me. >> is marco rubio the victim of high expectations here?
1:41am
was anybody doomed to fail in setting or did he just screw it up worse than others might have? >> have come to the idea it might be a good idea for the chair to come together and say the state of the union response, it's just not going to work for anybody. it's an impossible format. i think there were some specific things, especially from the substantive standpoint that were really troublesome about rubio's response last night. but in general, it's an impossible setting. you've got the president coming into the chamber, joint session, all the lights, all the cameras, all the lights, all the circumstance. and they have tried putting the responses in schools, tried putting them in state legislatures. every different possible backdrop. they never work. they never help anyone. they never help any party that delivers them. >> and we end up -- we have the bug up there of marco rubio with the lurch for the water bottle. mostly because it's amazing. but also because there is inevitably a focus on just the physical staging of the response because of the contrast with the president's speech.
1:42am
has there ever been one where the opposite party's response has either risen to the same level as the president's speech or advanced the opposite party's interest? >> no, no. i can't think of one. the evolution of these things is funny. it wasn't always just one person giving the response. i think the low moment was 1985 when the democrats just lost to reagan and they had bill clinton host this 30-minute infomercial. and they literally packed in every democratic politician in the country for like a 20-second speech. and they had a focus group. they didn't realize at the time that talking about the focus group was political suicide. they kept saying our focus group told us this. they've tried all different formats. i've never seen one that actually pulls it off. >> i almost feel like while there are still i guess two or three more for barack obama, depending. the president doesn't always give the state of the union when he is on his way out the door. >> right. >> but if we've got more ahead for barack obama, this might be a time for them to opt out gracefully if they are going to. but then while we've still got it, there is also the political
1:43am
question of the republican party having chosen marco rubio as their guy. of course he is on the cover of "time" magazine as the savior. and he has been talked up that way in the republican party since even before he was sworn in, once he got elected. does he deserve it substantively? is there anything that is different about him that lays out a more sustainable, more electorally likely to be effective path for republicans than other politicians they've got now? >> there are two differences with rubio. i don't think they add up to much, though. one is his life story is relatable in a way that their last standard bearer wasn't. mitt romney's life story was the story of 1% from birth through to age 65. nobody could really relate to that. marco rubio's is sort of an immigrant story. it is the american dream in a lot of ways. so it is more relatable. and also the fact that he is hispanic and republicans have this problem with hispanics. and that goes hand in hand with rubio is slowly nudging the party away from the hard line on immigration. i'm not sure exactly where that
1:44am
is going to lead. but that's the one sort of substantive different that rubio represents from where the republican party has been. in every other substantive way, though, not only was that speech sort of a rehash of what romney offered last year, that was a rehash of where the republicans have been since the 1980 campaign. because the theme of the reagan campaign in 1980 was government is not the solution to your problems. government is the problem. and that was a measure that was geared towards what at that time was the emerging working class, middle class sort of majority in the country. that was southern whites. that was northern white ethnics. in the north it was the outer borough ed koch types. we talked in the last few weeks when he died. they had grievances against the government relating to bussing, to desegregation, relating to welfare programs proliferated in the great society. reagan was really tapping into that and conservatism for the last three decades has really tapped into that. the story right now in the story of the 2012 election is today's emerging majority, emerging working class, middle class majority is a lot more diverse. it's nonwhite. it's women.
1:45am
it's professional women. it's millennials. and their attitudes towards government are totally and completely different than the attitudes of the archie bunker voters of the '70s. i don't want to be too dismissive. the attitudes are totally different. and rubio looks different than mitt romney and his story is different than mitt romney, but he is delivering the same romney/reagan message into an audience that i don't think is buying it anymore. >> i feel like we hear so often that demography is destiny. i feel like policy is destiny here. and i felt like actually the single most embarrassing thing about the republican response was to say that this is the post romney republican party and we're going to have him vote against the violence against women act as the one other thing he does on the day that he gives that response. in terms of appealing to women voters specifically and the gender gap was as definitive in this election as it was in any other. do you see the republican party picking up any signs of all that it's about policy and it's not just about putting more female faces out there to represent?
1:46am
>> no. and the timing yesterday, the violence against women vote i think tells the story. the person that they have decided for the moment at least is the future of their party, marco rubio, voted against it. but also think about the politics. he is a guy who is very interested in running for 2016 republican presidential nomination. there was a calculation there on marco rubio's part that voting against that yesterday was the quote/unquote correct vote in terms of political positioning for the 2016 nomination. that tells you not just where marco rubio is in this position, but where the republican party is or where he perceives it to be. until somebody like that feels safe voting for the violence against women act, you've got a bigger problem there than you don't have enough women on stage, i agree. and i think we should just offer this to the republican party now and the democratic party of the future, just don't do state of the union responses anymore. >> yes. both chairs get together. common ground. >> bipartisanship. steve kornacki, the host of msnbc's "the cycle", senior
1:47am
writer for salon. thanks a lot. thanks for being here. best thing in the world, an improbably sweet lbj valentine's day edition, coming up.
1:48am
1:49am
1:50am
in the 1964 state of the union address, just weeks after president john f. kennedy was assassinated, the new president, lyndon johnson prepared an
1:51am
unconditional war on poverty in america. in 1941, as world war ii raged overseas, but for us pearl harbor was still months away, franklin roosevelt proclaimed in the state of the union that year the four essential human freedoms -- freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. in 1996, after his party's shellacking in the midterm elections, but before his landslide reelection victory, bill clinton proclaimed in the state of the union that the era of big government was over. we're too close in time now to know if any of the state-of-the-union addresses by our current presidents will be remembered as highlights in the history of that presidential obligation. but if we were to pick from all the modern state-of-the-union addresses, only one president, and only one speech, and only one line, if we were to pick the most important, the most remembered line in any modern state of the union, history has
1:52am
already spoken as to what the most single important line is, we just hit that important moment in the state-of-the-union address by an american president. >> hussein sought significant quantities of uranium from africa. >> it was not remembered because it was inspiring or elegant or positive, it was remembered because it was important, because it was a lie. a very important lie that made it into the state of the union in 2003, ten years ago. we are now at the ten-year anniversary of what the last presidential administration did to get our country to go to war on false pretenses. and it is starting to feel like that ten-year period of time is just enough time to finally start to appreciate how remarkable that is, that we went through that as a country. i mean, if it happened to another country we would find it impossible to believe. but it happened to us.
1:53am
we were tricked by our own government. not into passing some piece of legislation or letting some corrupt politician off the hook who should not have gotten off the hook. we were tricked into starting a full-blown war. how did they pull that off? and do we understand how that happened to us well enough that we are in a position to stop it from happening again if anybody else ever tries to do that to us again? we have just completed a brand-new blockbuster of a documentary here at msnbc on exactly this question. it will premier monday night here on msnbc. and i think it is possible that it is going to cause quite an upset. we're going to have the first preview clip of it here, exclusively tomorrow night. i hope they will give us another preview clip on friday, although i'm not sure. but the whole thing premiers with me hosting it on monday at 9:00 eastern on msnbc. and then everybody will start to lose their minds soon there after. so mark your date, monday night, at 9:00, we'll be right back.
1:54am
[ male announcer ] rocky had no idea why dawn was gone for so long... ...but he'd wait for her forever, for any reason, and would always be there with the biggest welcome home. for a love this strong, dawn only feeds him iams. compared to other leading brands, it has 50% more animal protein. ...to help keep rocky's body as strong as a love that never fades... if he ever lets her leave again. iams. keep love strong.
1:55am
in the middle of the night it can be frustrating. it's hard to turn off and go back to sleep. intermezzo is the first and only prescription sleep aid approved for use as needed in the middle of the night when you can't get back to sleep. it's an effective sleep medicine you don't take before bedtime. take it in bed only when you need it
1:56am
and have at least four hours left for sleep. do not take intermezzo if you have had an allergic reaction to drugs containing zolpidem, such as ambien. allergic reactions such as shortness of breath or swelling of your tongue or throat may occur and may be fatal. intermezzo should not be taken if you have taken another sleep medicine at bedtime or in the middle of the night or drank alcohol that day. do not drive or operate machinery until at least 4 hours after taking intermezzo and you're fully awake. driving, eating, or engaging in other activities while not fully awake without remembering the event the next day have been reported. abnormal behaviors may include aggressiveness, agitation, hallucinations, or confusion. alcohol or taking other medicines that make you sleepy may increase these risks. in depressed patients, worsening of depression, including risk of suicide, may occur. intermezzo, like most sleep medicines, has some risk of dependency. common side effects are headache, nausea, and fatigue. so if you suffer from middle-of-the-night insomnia,
1:57am
ask your doctor about intermezzo and return to sleep again. ♪ best new thing in the world. okay? tomorrow is valentine's day. if you are in a relationship, do not forget, do something nice. if you are not in a relationship i hope that valentine's day does not bum you out and you have a really good day, however you want it to go. but on the occasion of valentine's day this year, one of the presidential libraries is going to make that day love letters, to the woman who becomes his lady. for public viewing. some of the letters were made public before. a few of them were even performed out loud by these actors in the '70s. >> my dear bird, this morning, i'm ambitious, proud, energetic, and very madly in love with you.
1:58am
i want to see people. i want to walk through the throngs, i want to do things with the drive. if i had a box i would almost make a speech this minute. plans, ideas, hopes, i'm bubbling over with them. >> lyndon, please tell me as soon as you can what the deal is. i'm afraid it is politics. oh, i know i haven't any business, not any proprietary interest, but i would hate for you to go into politics. >> isn't that awesome? after they first met it took the passage of nearly two months and nearly 100 letters between them, before ms. claudia taylor agreed to marry him. we don't think of our presidents as young men in love, sometimes as celebrities, but particularly not young men in love. we don't think of this parent that way, we think of lbj as a
1:59am
president who was deliberately crass as a tactic. he made people talk to him while he sat on a toilet. we think of lbj as the president whose most famous recording of him was making an incredible phone call from the white house to order himself from pants from a man in texas. you have heard the recording of lbj ordering the pants from texas, haven't you? oh please tell me you have heard this recording. >> i want a couple of -- maybe three of the light brown, kind of an almost powder color, like the powder on a lady's face. and then there was some green, and then maybe some other light pair, if you had a blue on that, or black, one blue and one black. i need about six pairs to wear around in the evening when i come in from work. and i need about a half an inch, toti